HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979 03 07 Solid Waste Presentation to CALNO
.._.,_~..,_~,___~,___.._,,"~,_~C_ . ......--..____............. .___-.--""____''T'''"":".. . .-' """"'..._.....--~',...--~-l/'-~.. -... --
1~~.\-
SOLID WASTE
PRESENTATION TO CALNO
MAR...c:;~7, 19~
1. ."IEltroduct i.on and Pu~s~
A. To present a progress report.
2. Steps in Ana1~?i~
A. Current situation:
1. Description of area, land use, et cetera.
2. Projections of population and solid waste
3. Collection systems (talks with private haulers)
4. Present disposal system.
B. Study technologies:
1. Pyrolysis
2. Electrical Generation
3. Earthworms
4 . Methane
5. RDF
6. Local visits and review and study of current literature.
C. Consultant work
markets and heat energy recovery:
1. Market Analysis
a. Paper
b. Glass
c. Electricity
d. Ferrous Metals
e. Al urn] num
2. Heat energy recoverv:
a. Markets available
b. Alternatives for use with Regional SIP
c. Feasibility, Costs -- Based on 1979 dollars and reflecting
net unit costs per ton.
3. Cost comparisons with prescnt system -- $/10n from 1960 to 2000.
D. Nanagement Considerations
3. Preliminary Conclusions
q.
S llIlU11a ry
L-,.ll1 :).... r/~\"".(.,
,
, "1--
C ";'.>1 i\..' \ .. L i') IL "-.' .....'
SUMMARY
ADJUSTED UNIT COST COMPARISON
FOR
ALTERNATIVE RESOURCE REOCVERY SYSTEM
NUMBER 2
ADJUSTED NET UNIT DISPOSAL COSTS
1979
YEAR BASE 2% 4% 6% 8% 10%
1980 10.04 9.97 9.90 9.83 9.76 9.69
1985 8.92 8.43 7.89 7.30 6.64 5.93
1990 8.72 7.77 6.61 5.19 3.49 2.47
1995 8.68 7.19 5.25 2.63 (0.85) (5.45)
2000 8.93 6.95 4.03 (0.27) (6.53) (15.60)
AVERAGE 9.06 8.06 6.74 4.94 2.50 (0.60)
iJlll~
k Lm:l
IIBR~]Il~
SUMMARY
ADJUSTED UNIT COST COMPARISON
FOR
EXISTING TRPJ1SFER!LANDFILL SYSTEM
ADJUSTED NET 1mIT DISPOSAL COSTS
-----,------------
1979
YEAR BASE 2% 4% 6% 87- 10%
1980 5.05 5.06 5.07 5.08 5.09 5.10
1985 5.01 5.07 5.14 5.22 5.30 5.39
1990 4.97 5.09 5.24 5.41 5.63 5.76
1995 4.94 5.12 5.37 5.70 6.14 6.71
2000 4.94 5.19 5.57 6.12 6.93 7.09
AVERAGE 4.97 5.11 5.28 5.51 5.82 6.21
""'-:'"'?'~?'!(''f:1'~~~'\.,...,..,.."-~".,~.~,,-,.t'--''''--''''~''''_.''.'--....-~.'-- -----'--'....~-.,J.\'_:-
.....,.- .-~'-_..__.----~-',""<......."~..,.,_.- .._- -"-,---,,._---<--~.. --'--"'--.--.. - --< ",,-_..__..._,..~_._.,
SOLID WASTE STUDY
:
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMNENDATIONS
1. Centralized or consolidated managementoI solid waste activites in Spminole
County which includes the municipalities is desirable and necf.:ssary in
order to ~ssure adequate planning for the future.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
a) For the period 1979 to 1985, establish a Seminole County Solid
Waste Board to study, review, and recommend action in the solid waste manage-
ment field.
b) By 1985, establish, through special act of the state legislature,
a Seminole County Solid Waste Authority with authority to direct all solid
waste operations in Seminole County and to fund, constTuct, and operate a
resource recovery system by 1990.
2. Granting exclusive franchise areas within the County to private and public
collectors will incrf'ase efficiency, reduce operating costs, and stabilize
cost increases.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Seminole Couoty and rr:unicipalities adopt ordinances grant-ing cxclufoi'/p
franchises within the total area of Seminole County. The individual
franchise areas \yould be worked out by the private haulers 'Who :\1-e now
working in the County and municipalities.
3. Mandatory collection of solid waste for all residents in the County is
feasible and desirable and would increase efficiency of collection and
reduce frequency of rate increases.
RECO}~1ENDATIONS:
Each municipali ty and the Board of County COl1unissioners should
establish mandatory collection of solid '..'aste in their areas and adupt
~ procedure for collection of necessary monthly charges.
1"~"""'7""~"-'''' '~"''''--'''
'" '
· Source separat1 . could yield some revenues to _Lfset collection costs
if the publi,c were made aware of the benefits of such separation.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Encourage each municipality and the Board of County Commissioners to
institute a source separation program in their respective jurisdictions.
5. A requirement will exist for disposal of irreducible residues at a county
landfill even though a resource recovery system is implemented in the
future.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Continue to operate Osceola Landfill as a solid waste disposal site for
Seminole County.
6. Markets for resource recovery products within Seminole Count.y are ]indted.
Heat energy recovery through incineration is the most feasible ref;ource
recovery alternative for Seminole County.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Future planning for resource recovery in Seminole County should focus
on detailed study of methods to implement recovery of heat energy throllgh
.
.
incineration.
7. Net unit costs of heat energy recovery are sensitive to increRses in energy
costs. If energy costs (fuel, electricity) inflate rapidly above the CPI
(4%) then by 1990 unit costs for resource recovery through heat energy
recovery will equal the unit costs for the present solid waste system.
A higher rate of inflation of energy costs will make a resource recovery
system economically feasible in the late 1980's.
8. Commitment of funds to resource recovery is not economically fUlsible at
this time.~ (1979) This plan should be re~-evaluated every two years to
dete~mine feasibility of implementation.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
--
Create a county-wide solid waste trust fund to accumulate funds for
future construction of solid waste facilities. Establish a procedure now
for collecting and a~cumulating funds for capital investment and resource
recovery facilities for the 1990 time frame. Institute either a yearly
solid waste assessment millage tax or impose a solid waste charge on each
new housing or commercial development, similar to a water and sewer con-
nection fee.
~
WJS :,iw